Thursday 29 January 2015

GENETICS FOR DUMMIES BY ZOMBIES AND DOGS

Now- I’m not a science whiz or a

genetic professor, but I do have a

functioning brain cell with the

ability to research and debunk

BSL Bullshit.

Now- I’m curious where Mr. Sloan

gathered his “reliable rule of

thumb” from. “The more the dog

looks like a pit the more likely it

will go pit?” Now- I’ve been

looking EVERYWHERE for any

source of data that backs that

statement up and I’ve found

nothing.

When you breed a dog for a purpose- or “purpose bred” for specific traits and behaviors it’s understandable and expected for that specific bred dog to behave in such manner. As the famous Gary Wilkes who wrote an article for DogsBite.org.
Now- according to Gary Wilks, he comes from a long line of southern pit bull fighters who purposely bred fighting dogs. He acknowledges how his family dogs were bred to create their desired fighting dog- but all that points out is- a purpose bred pit bull to be a fighting dog will be exactly that- they hope.

But what happens when you have the genetic mish mash of… Pit bull, healer, lab, collie and only God knows what? Well, according to Dogsbite.org members- somehow the “pit bull gene” ( which consists of multiple genetic contributions…) is just so BAD ASS – that it squashes every genetic contribution.

At its most fundamental level,

inheritance in organisms occurs

by passing discrete heritable units,

called genes, from parents to

progeny.

So, it makes me wonder-

considering many dogs- such as

mine are labeled “pit mixes” aka

MUTTS-, just how should these

dogs behave?

According to DBO train of

thought- the 4th

generation of this puppy

should be-

1. Dog aggressive

2. Herder

3. Retriever

4. Short, long, soft,

textured fur

5. Purple tongue

6. Stand offish

7. Friendly

8. Single owner preferred

9. Family friendly

10. Large

11. Medium sized

And a kazillon of other

characteristics.

Riiiiiight. Pick the pit mix:

All of them. How’s that

for genetics?

Wednesday 28 January 2015

THE DEATH BELL TOLLS FOR BSL

2014 Year in Review

It is time to take a look back at 2014, and what the year has brought us in the world of breed discriminatory laws. 2013 was a good year, but pales in comparison to what happened this year.

Below is a list of passages, repeals and rejections of breed discriminatory laws, as well as some notable court cases. For our purposes, rejection means when a breed discriminatory law of any kind was brought up by an official and discussed. Because of this, this list may vary from what others consider a rejection, which differs greatly depending on who is asked. We use this definition in order to have a base from year to year, with which to compare.

Repeals:
Bonner Springs, KS
Canton, MI
Waterloo, WI
Bradford, PA
Clayton, MO
Garden City, KS
South Bend, Indiana
Washington Court, OH
Dearborn County, Indiana
Muscoda, WI
Hallsville, MO
Spring Hill, KS
Fairway, KS
Moreauville, LA
Cambridge, WI
15 total

Partial repeal:
Whitepine, Tennessee

Rejection:
El Dorado KS-rejected adding breeds to existing law
Cincinnati, OH
League City, TX
Terrebonne Parish, Louisiana
Randolph County, AR
Madison, WI
Medford, OR
Monticello, AR
Springdale, AR
Baker City, OR
10 total

Passage:
Lake Elsinore, CA MSN
Carroll County, MS
Humphrey, AR (“pit bulls” Rottweilers and Bull Mastiffs)
3 total

State:

In 2014 both Utah and South Dakota passed state-wide prohibitions against breed discriminatory laws. Washington, Missouri and Maryland all attempted similar bills but ultimately the bills died at some point in the process.

Maryland: Legislators finally passed a bill that over turned the disastrous court of appeals ruling in the case of Tracey v Solesky. Legislators were hung up on the standard of liability for dog owners, but were unanimous about the need to over rule the landlord liability for dog bites and the breed discriminatory part of the ruling. They finally reached a consensus after years of debate.

Court cases:

New Llano, Louisiana: Unenforceable by court order. The Nelson family sued the town of New Llano after they were told to remove their dog from the town or risk her being killed. The Nelsons had just moved to New Llano and were un-aware of the ban. Mazzy was held in boarding for a long time as the court case went through the process. An injunction was filed and granted by the judge. This case is still technically active.

Clay, Alabama: In early 2013, the town of Clay passed a breed ban. This was immediately challenged and mid 2013 an injunction was filed. 2014 saw that case before the courts and the judge ruled against the town. A couple notable things about that case was the judge saying that the town cannot ban something they have had no issue with. Officials admitted the ban was passed after the read an article about “pit bulls.”

We have seen repeated victories in court against Reynoldsburg, Ohio’s law, though they remain at the level of municipal court and are limited to people keeping their dogs and not challenging the law itself.

Aurora, Co: Aurora became the second city to put a breed discriminatory law on the ballot and, though the ballot measure ultimately failed, we saw amazing success in messaging, as well as a stark reminder that many people are not even aware they are living under these laws. A full analysis of the events can be found here: http://stopbsl.org/2014/11/06/aurora-colorado-the-good-the-bad-and-the-silver-lining/

2014 was a remarkable year for the rights of individuals and community safety. More and more municipalities are seeing the failure of breed discriminatory laws and overturning them. No doubt 2015 will be better.

It can be easy to lose sight of the larger picture when dealing with this fight day in and day out. We hope that this post shows that the tide is, in fact, turning against breed discriminatory laws, and laws that target irresponsible and reckless owners are winning out.

If you know of a repeal, rejection or enactment that is not on this list, please let me know by e-mailing StopBSL.org@gmail.com.

http://stopbsl.org/2015/01/27/2014-year-in-review/

Friday 23 January 2015

BREED SPECIFIC LAWS: A BASIC PRIMER

BREED SPECIFIC LAWS designate one or more specific dog breeds, mixes of these breeds or dogs having an
appearance of the designated breeds. These may include:
* Bull breeds – AKC, UKC, ADBA, mixes, appearance
* Rottweilers, Dobermans, German Shepherds
* Lesser common breeds – Akitas, Malamutes, Siberians, etc.
* Rare breeds – American Bulldogs, Presas, Tosas, etc.

BREED SPECIFIC LAWS impose prohibitions, restrictions or requirements on keeping the designated dog:
* outright prohibition
* future prohibition with grandfathering, with or without permits, restrictions or requirements
* immediate permits, restrictions or requirements

BREED SPECIFIC LAWS have been enacted by state and local governments (no federal law to date)
* provisions in general animal control provisions; or
* may also be used in the context of a dangerous dog law to impose these permits, restrictions or
requirements on designated breeds, with or without due process provisions.

BREED SPECIFIC LAW ENFORCEMENT is done through licensing, door to door, general surveillance, complaint or
incident driven and may include:
* due process opportunity to show incorrect identification
* destruction with or without opportunity to remove from jurisdiction
* remain in community under permits, restrictions and requirements

BREED SPECIFIC LAW common requirements may include:
* housing: pens, fences, residence or building, warning signs
* handling: muzzles, leash length and strength, age and competence of handler
* transport: vehicle containment, destinations, entering jurisdiction
* activities: public area restrictions
* status: spay/neuter; offspring, identification by photo, microchip or tattoo
* extra costs: permits, enhanced penalties
* insurance or bond: availability, amount, named insureds, notices of cancellation, documentation
* civil and or criminal penalties, destruction of dog for violations

BREED SPECIFIC LAW related consequences:
* housing discrimination for renters or through CC&Rs
* Americans with Disabilities Act accommodation or state service dog laws
* insurance underwriting discrimination
* common carrier discrimination (airline policies)
* travel, relocation, access to services (vet, training, events)
* shelter practices and policies
* prohibition from participation in training, events and activities
* emotional distress to family and others
* distress to dogs impounded, destroyed or badly treated including by
law enforcement (search warrants, probation and parole, emergency response
* underground avoidance of licensing, rabies vaccination, vet care, training, socialization
* confrontational violence potential for owner, family, community

"BSL" emerged in the 1980's and focused on "pit bulls." Enactment was sporadic in the United States but
resulted in state litigation challenging local ordinances on several issues. A number of cases upheld local laws,
and the trend to litigate tapered off with upsurges in new ordinances often following publicized incidents. To
date, Ohio is the only state including "pit bulls" in its vicious dog definition.   That statutory provision was
successfully challenged for lack of due process generally, not related to the breed specific reference in 2004.
Additional legislation will address this deficiency and may change the BSL provision. (State v. Cowan, 103 Ohio St.3d 144)
Another Ohio case in the Third Appellate District, Marion County, State v. Murphy reversed a criminal conviction
based on the statutory inclusion of pit bulls as vicious for lack of evidence presented to the trial court that the
specific pit bulls were vicious and disregard of defendant's evidence that they were not vicious. NEW 12/24/06
2012 Ohio H.B. 14 was enacted, amending the Revised Code to remove "pit bull" from definition of "vicious dog."
UPDATED 7/23/13  Information on legal issues & case law
CALIFORNIA local jurisdictions considered but did not enact BSL during the early to mid-1980s. For example, in
1985 at the request of a citizen, Contra Costa County considered and rejected BSL in favor of "generic"
dangerous dog provisions. November 4, 1985: Regulation of Dangerous Animals

The first local BSL ordinance in California was enacted in the Central Valley town of Livingston in March, 1987
using a restricted permit format. Livingston, March 1987
Other jurisdictions quickly followed including Santa Clara County, Woodland, Santa Monica and Union City. The
Union City ordinance was successfully challenged in a trial court decision.

Beebe & American Dog Owners Association v. City of Union City, 1989

A state BSL bill was introduced but during the legislative process, the BSL provision was deleted and a
comprehensive provision added to a generic dangerous dog law as Food & Agricultural Code Section 31683:

Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prevent a city

or county from adopting or enforcing its own program for the control

of potentially dangerous or vicious dogs that may incorporate all,

part, or none of this chapter, or that may punish a violation of this

chapter as a misdemeanor or may impose a more restrictive program

to control potentially dangerous or vicious dogs, provided that no

program shall regulate these dogs in a manner that is specific as to

breed."

This bill was Senate Bill 428, passed by the legislature in 1989 and signed by Republican Governor George
Deukmejian. Governor's Letter
Updated 4/3/14 Detailed information on state "breed specific preemption" law

Some but not all local California BSL ordinances were repealed but there was no enforcement against individual
owners in the ensuing years. Individual shelter policies and practices varied as to adoption of pit bulls or other
types of dogs considered dangerous. Following a fatal incident in San Francisco in June, 2005, SB 861 modified
the preemption to will allow cities and counties to enact ordinances specific as to breed only pertaining to
mandatory spay/neuter programs and breeding requirements, but no breed or mixed dog breed is to be
declared potentially dangerous or vicious under these ordinances. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed
SB 861 which will be effective January 1, 2006. The remainder of the state statute on dangerous and vicious
dogs remains unchanged but applies only to individual dogs based on specific criteria. California has 58
counties and 478 cities. As authorized, many have enacted more stringent ordinances pertaining to dangerous
and vicious dogs. CALIFORNIA FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL CODE, Dangerous Dog Law, Breed Specific Preemption (2005) Including amendments effective January 1, 2006
On November 15, 2005 the San Francisco Board of Supervisors unanimously passed 3 related ordinances:An increase in penalties for failure to license a dog to infraction, fine of $100. Amendments to the vicious and dangerous dog provisionsNew provisions requiring altering all pit bulls, as defined, over 8 weeks unless responsible party meetsstated exceptions allowing keeping unaltered pit bull and/or breeding subject to restrictions. This will likely be a model for breeding regulations in other jurisdictions. NEW 10/14/06 San Francisco BSL provisions, codified      SF Bite Reports    2nd Q 06    3rd Q 06  (Corr. 10/31/06)NEW 8/2/07 San Francisco BSL Administrative forms: BREEDING PERMIT & SHOW DOG EXEMPTION APPLICATION,Fee Reduction and Waiver Form, AFFIDAVIT PROMISING TO SPAY/NEUTER, DETERMINATION OF BREED
NOTIFICATION AND APPEAL HEARING REQUEST FORM, REVOCATION OF PERMIT NOTICE, MANDATORY SPAY/
NEUTER MEDICAL EXEMPTION AND OTHER EXCEPTIONS
PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, MARYLAND where a years' long effort to repeal the catch/kill ban on any Pit Bulls not
grandfathered/registered prior to February 3, 1997 failed last year, the County's policy has been slightly
amended to allow out-of-county transfer of impounded Pit Bulls to publicly operated animal control facilities
only. Prince George's County Press Release & commenting Press Release of the Maryland Dog Federation.
NEW 7/13/06 ANIMAL RIGHTS/ANIMAL WELFARE ORGANIZATIONS vary in policies on breed specific issues.
Notably, the Humane Society of the United States now opposes breed specific measures and advocates
"Comprehensive "dog bite" legislation, coupled with better consumer education and forced responsible pet
keeping efforts, would do far more to protect communities than banning a specific breed."

NATHAN WINOGRAD of No Kill Solutions lambasts the humane interests that condemn dogs by breeds in
"Stoking the Fires of Hate: How the Animal Protection Movement is Failing Pit Bulls".
----------------------------------------NEW 8/17/06 The Staffordshire Terrier Club of America, parent club of The American Kennel Club recognized
American Staffordshire Terrier, prohibits use of its copyrighted Standard of Excellence for the American
Staffordshire Terrier without its consent and for purposes of determining whether a dog is, in fact, of this breed
rather than evaluation of its comparative quality by Judges approved by The AKC.

http://www.theanimalcouncil.com/BreedSpecificLaw.html

Six States Consider Rejecting Breed-Specific Legislation

There may be good news ahead for the pit bull, and those who resemble a pit bull breed of dog, as six more states in the USA, are considering rejecting breed-specific legislation.

Breed-specific legislation, commonly known as “BSL,” is a law passed by a legislative body that bans breeding, possession, or ownership of specific breeds of domestic dogs. Some jurisdictions have enacted breed-specific legislation in response to well-publicized incidents where certain breeds – predominately pit bull-type dogs – have viciously attacked, maimed, and killed humans, or their animal companions. Some of these dogs, are also known to be used in dog fighting, The United States Army, and the Marine Corps. In response, some state-level governments in the United States have prohibited, or restricted the ability of municipal governments within those states to enact breed-specific legislation.

The American Bar Association, The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), many animal rescue groups, and even American President Barack Obama, are opposed to BSL legislation. In a response to an anti-BSL online petition, signed by more than 30,000 people, the White House delivered an official response saying “Breed-Specific Legislation Is a Bad Idea.” The White House “does not support breed-specific legislation — research shows that bans on certain types of dogs are largely ineffective and often a waste of public resources…As an alternative to breed-specific policies, the CDC recommends a community-based approach to prevent dog bites. And ultimately, we think that’s a much more promising way to build stronger communities of pets and pet owners.”

Lisa Lafontaine, who is president of the Washington Humane Society, and a longtime opponent of breed-specific legislation told The Huffington Post, that she thinks this statement will provide a big boost. “The White House is such a bully pulpit for important issues,” she says. “[C]ertainly for them to come down against this type of discrimination I think will give pause to any communities that are thinking about putting something like this in place, and certainly will fuel the work that’s already being done by advocates to overturn legislation that already exists.”

Kristen Auerbach, spokesperson for the Fairfax County Animal Shelter, in Northern Virginia, says that even though her jurisdiction does not have breed restrictions, “people have heard the stories about beloved family dogs being taken from their owners in places where there are full bans on pit bulls. That is every dog owner’s worst nightmare,” she said. “People don’t want to risk it.” By banning BSL laws, people can adopt a pit-bull, without fear of their family member being taken away. “BSL not only impacts people in Maryland, but contributes to the overall perception of pit bulls as different, which inevitably works its way into the public conscience and effects adoptions, shelter policies, and even other public policy,” she said.

A recent national survey commissioned by Luntz Global, of the Best Friends Animal Society reveals that “84 percent of those polled believe that local, state or federal governments should not infringe on a person’s right to own whatever breed of dog they choose.” Global says, that the result of the survey “is consistent with a growing trend by many state and local governments that have repealed breed discriminatory provisions and enacted behavior-based, breed-neutral dangerous dog laws. Of the 850 polled, 59 percent were dog owners. Only four percent of those polled believed the federal government should dictate what breed of dog a person could own, while six percent supported state government restrictions and 11 percent local government limits.”

Supporting the survey is the fact that 17 states have passed laws that prohibit cities and counties from banning or restricting dogs because of breed. Global says that “Even the American Bar Association passed a Resolution 100 in August, 2012 calling for all political subdivisions to repeal breed discriminatory provisions.

At the moment it is predominately the pit bull, and pit bull types of dogs that are at risk of being banned as a result of breed-specific legislation, but where will it end? If this kind of legislation can be enacted against one breed, what is preventing it being enforced on other breeds as well. It is time the courts judged the caretaker’s lack of responsibility towards these dogs, rather than blame the dogs, and sentence them to death row.

Seventeen states have already passed laws that prevent municipalities from discriminating against dog specific breeds. The six states now considering similar prohibitions on breed-specific legislation, are Maryland, Vermont, South Dakota, Missouri, Utah, and Washington state.

Photo Credit: Shutterstock

http://www.ecorazzi.com/2014/02/07/six-states-consider-rejecting-breed-specific-legislation/

Peoples thoughts on BSL (breed specific legislation)

?

I'm not sure about other countries but Australia is bringing in a new rule about dog breeds. They plan to get rid of dogs like pit bulls and rottweilers because they just assume that if one pit bull is aggressive the whole breed must be. Personally I can't believe that they are actually bringing in BSL. It's so wrong! What do yous think about BSL?

Update : Thank you to everyone who answered! I'm glad all who have answered agree that it is wrong. I just wish there was some way to prevent BSL happening! All those poor dogs who don't have a choice whether they live or not. They'll kill breeds they consider dangerous but they give people who have murdered and done horrible things a second chance! I have seen many pit bulls, staffies, rottweilers etc who are very kind and gentle with people and babies. Like most of you have mentioned it's not the dogs fault it's the owners.

Best Answer

Cheryl answered 2 years ago

i am 100% for bsl ... and to the people saying it does not work, in canada, where there is bsl, bites are down so it is working ... and in canada, dangerous breeds are not immediately euthanized, they must be spayed/neutered, must be muzzled in public, and must have a fence that will contain them where they live out their lives ... hardly harsh rules for dogs that can and will kill other people's pets (and people more and more often too, including their owners !!!) ... the building i live in banned pit bulls from living here, get one bleeding heart on the strata council, pit bulls now allowed ... pit bull moves in and within one month it had already almost killed another tenant's dog ... so that pit bull and owner are evicted, pit bills again not allowed, and the rest of the building with dogs can breathe easy ... twenty five years not one dog on dog incident EVER until one pit bull moves in ... there is absolutely no need for anyone to own a dog as a pet that is more like a weapon, you never know when it will go off ... and you may have got all the 20-something black and white opinions posted here, but when put to actual votes with actual adults (miami-dade most recently) bsl challenges remain in place ... maybe when you grow up and mature and have had more real life experience with pit bulls, your naive attitude might change ...

Source:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/07/05/...

0

2
Comment

BSL is bad

Total Pageviews

Thursday 29 January 2015

GENETICS FOR DUMMIES BY ZOMBIES AND DOGS

Wednesday 28 January 2015

THE DEATH BELL TOLLS FOR BSL

2014 Year in Review

Friday 23 January 2015

BREED SPECIFIC LAWS: A BASIC PRIMER

Six States Consider Rejecting Breed-Specific Legislation

Peoples thoughts on BSL (breed specific legislation)

?

Source:

Other Answers (9)

Source(s):

Total Pageviews

Thursday 29 January 2015

GENETICS FOR DUMMIES BY ZOMBIES AND DOGS

Wednesday 28 January 2015

THE DEATH BELL TOLLS FOR BSL

2014 Year in Review

Friday 23 January 2015

BREED SPECIFIC LAWS: A BASIC PRIMER

Six States Consider Rejecting Breed-Specific Legislation

Peoples thoughts on BSL (breed specific legislation)

?

Source:

Other Answers (9)

Source(s):

Subscribe To